Weaving

1. Introduction

In this section we discuss the need and opportunity to weave multiple knowledge systems and provide some inspirational examples that can be used in the implementation and operationalization phase of the conservation action planned for the region.

Western Science has produced a rich understanding of how and why biodiversity and ecosystem change is occurring at an unsustainable pace. The implications for society are great and a concerted response is urgent (IPBES 2019). This led to the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the need for national and regional strategies to meet the targets and goals of the framework. The framework places great emphasis on an inclusive approach, the importance of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge (ITK) and the vital role played by Indigenous peoples in the stewardship of vast areas of the Earth’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems. 

This recognition, fostering, and understanding of Traditional Knowledge and science is the first step in bridging and weaving knowledge systems. The contribution of ITK is now understood to be essential to achieving desirable futures for nature and people (Jessen et al. 2021, Sidik 2022).

Knowledge frameworks for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services differ greatly in the role and importance they place on Western Science versus Indigenous science and traditional knowledge. For instance, Mace (2014) in an influential article titled “Whose conservation?” described four phases of the framing and purpose of conservation that shifted over the last fifty years. These shifts mainly relate to how the relationships between people and nature are viewed, with consequences for the science underpinning conservation (Figure below).

The prevailing view of conservation has changed several times over the past 50 years. Recent decades have introduced people and nature as coevolving and mutually defining reality and recognizing the knowledge and ecological stewardship of Indigenous and Local communities the world over. As a result multiple knowledge framings coexist today (Source: Mace 2014)

Mace 2014 identified four key phases in the framing of conservation knowledge and action:

Nature for itself (1960-1970): “...which prioritizes wilderness and intact natural habitats, generally without people, and has scientific underpinnings from wildlife ecology, natural history, and theoretical ecology...” (Mace 2014). Examples of this type are for example: iconic species (e.g., Caribou) and area-based conservation (e.g., protected areas, KBAs)..

Nature despite people (1980-1990): “...the focus is on threats to species and habitats from humans, and on strategies to reverse or reduce them” (Mace 2014). Some examples include species extinction risk (Species at risk) and habitat loss (Global Forest Watch).

Nature for people (2000-2005): “...nature provides crucial goods and services that are irreplaceable yet have been consistently ignored….” Mace (2005). The work on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was a key driver of the widespread adoption of this way of thinking about the natural environment”. Multiple examples and initiatives have been developed and implemented (e.g., ResNet and Nature’s Contribution to People: Díaz et al. 2018, Braat 2018, Chaplin et al. 2019, Liu et al. 2023, Brauman et al. 2020, Hill et al. 2021).

People and nature: this framework (2010 - ):“...rejects the linear relationship characteristic of” nature for people,” instead envisaging a much more multilayered and multidimensional relationship that is difficult to conceptualize, let alone to measure.” (Mace 2014). 

None of these framings has been eclipsed which means they are all in active use today. However, recent work has expanded on Mace’s to include multiple partners, and knowledge systems in the co-production of knowledge, management planning, implementation, and evaluation of conservation outcomes (Evans 2021, Williams et al. 2020).

Contemporary challenges from global to national and local scales include moving from one-way relationships (Western Science to others) to weaving multiple knowledge systems aimed to address multiple issues in complex socioeconomic and diverse biophysical and biocultural regions and contexts (e.g., WEF 2023, Wheeler & Root 2020, McGregor 2021, Enquist et al. 2024). Strengthening Indigenous-led governance and promoting meaningful Indigenous participation and engagement in decision-making and management is an international aspiration worldwide (e.g., Goolmeer et al. 2022, Wilkinson et al. 2020, Tengö et al. 2017, Fernández et a; 2023; Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact et al. 2022), including Canada (Henri et al. 2021, Bowles et al. 2022, TWC). Reconciling conservation and biodiversity goals with Indigenous Peoples land and resources rights is also required in any process that might reach a vision of living in harmony with life on Earth.

2. Braiding and weaving western and Indigenous monitoring of environmental change

Western Science approaches complex problems such as climate change by monitoring a relatively small number of variables, such as mean temperatures, emissions of greenhouse gases, or indicators of fire and flood frequency and impacts. By contrast, many indigenous ways of knowing, including those of the Cree, approach these problems with a different strategy—by qualitatively assessing many variables (Peloquin and Berkes 2009). This approach to environmental monitoring is not unique to the Cree and has been observed in other Traditional Knowledge systems, as in Maori ways of ‘eyeballing’ animal abundance (Moller et al. 2004) and Inuit ways of monitoring the health and edibility of their food species (Berkes et al. 2007). 

Defining bridging, braiding and weaving

Indigenous science is a distinct, time-tested, and methodological knowledge system that can enhance and complement Western Science. Indigenous science is about the knowledge of the environment and knowledge of the ecosystem that Indigenous Peoples have.

Bridging fosters awareness, understanding, and recognition of Indigenous science as a distinct and equal science to Western Science approaches. Bridging is accomplished through mutual respect, repatriation, relationship building, engagement activities, and the development of learning resources.

Braiding brings together different ways of knowing and being. This refers to the braiding of Indigenous science and Western Science systems to achieve a holistic understanding of the environment while maintaining the integrity of each knowledge system. Braiding is founded on all the Indigenous science indicators included in the bridging as well as reciprocity, renewal, and mutual learning and collective benefit(s) of science outcomes.

Weaving is about all of the Indigenous science indicators involved in bridging and braiding as well as the inclusion of self-determined Indigenous methodologies, research paradigms, and worldview. Weaving involves appreciating and applying Indigenous science tools to inform approaches to environmental issues and species management in ways that align with the approaches specified by Indigenous Nations, governments, specific communities and international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Weaving is the path of Reconciliation.

(Definitions from the Government of Canada website on Indigenous science).

Local and Traditional Knowledge offers rich insights into complex environmental processes, such as disturbance regimes and unpredictable events at different scales (Peloquin and Berkes 2009, Royer et al. 2013).  Cree and western scientific knowledge are complementary, which when braided together provide new insights. Royer et al. (2013) show that by contrasting Cree hunters’ observations with climate data, they were able to identify an increase in fall and winter precipitation that could be causing a weakening of inland ice through a change in its composition (i.e., snow ice instead of congelation ice). Their results suggest that future measurement initiatives should put a stronger emphasis on the indicators the Cree have been observing (e.g., white/black ice thickness, water pockets, water pools) to assure a more comprehensive analysis of changes in local inland ice conditions. This data is also required to define realistic, field-based, numerical thermal models of inland ice cover. In this example, both knowledge systems are braided together, to produce deeper understanding of a complex pattern of change.

Traditional Knowledge may not have the quantitative tools and approaches used by Western Science and technology, but the environmental monitoring practices of indigenous and rural societies are significant in identifying ways to perceive the continuum of nature holistically. This knowledge is expressed in individual practices encoded in institutional arrangements that include purposeful modification and management of the landscape, resource allocation regimes, religious beliefs, and rituals that invite behaviour that adapt to shifts in the environment (Sayles and Mulrennan 2010, Sayles and Mulrennan 2010).

Example: Monitoring of Canada geese by Cree hunters

A particular pertinent example is the way indigenous Cree hunters in James Bay, understand and deal with ecological complexity and variable dynamics of the Canada goose (Branta canadensis, Sorais et al. 2022), and how their understanding of uncertainty and variability of goose migration and abundance shape subsistence activities (Peloquin and Berkes 2009). Ecological understandings of Cree hunters allow them to account for and deal with a very large number of variables at multiple scales. Hunters monitor patterns and processes in their day-to-day activities. The Cree deal with these large year-to-year variability by relying on social memory to construct an understanding of the expected range of observations (e.g., goose hunt success, timing of spring ice break-up). They communicate observations of specific events, with a focus on unusual occurrences and anomalies (e.g., unexpectedly thin and dangerous sea-ice) at a particular time and place, rather than on central measures or averages such as those relied upon by climate and biodiversity change models.

(Left) Canada geese (Branta canadensis) stage during fall and spring migration to northern latitudes. The geese have been a core part of Cree subsistence hunting for centuries. Right) Categories of factors affecting the goose hunt and how they interact according to Cree hunters (after Peloquin and Berkes 2009).

Changes in goose behaviour and availability are perceived by the Cree within a view of their social–ecological system that could be described as a complex and dynamic web of interactions. Complexity is one of the metaphors used by some Western scientists to explain ecological phenomena that have challenged reductionist explanations in science. Complexity thinking is one approach emerging from western thought that allows consideration of and discussion on phenomena that transcend analytical/reductionist models of conventional science and opens a door to a weaving of knowledge systems to understand open-ended ecological change in the HJBL.

3. Two-eyed seeing

Two-eyed seeing is a means of bringing diverse knowledge systems together on an equal footing (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall 2012). Two-eyed seeing offers a practical way to bridge Western Science and Traditional Knowledge systems by providing strategies for checking the accuracy and filling in the gaps of each, without one knowledge system subsuming the other. Two-eyed seeing is thus one ‘functioning mechanism for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across [the] knowledge systems’ (Tengö et al. 2014, p. 579), while the integrity of each is maintained. The study by Abu et al. (2019) used a two-eyed seeing approach to assess signals of long-term ecological and biophysical change in the Saskatchewan River Delta. This was achieved by comparing and evaluating Traditional Knowledge, archival records and instrumental observations.

4. Understanding knowledge weaving

“Braiding Indigenous Science and Western Science is a metaphor used to establish a particular relationship, an obligation of sorts to give, to receive, and to reciprocate. We braid cedar bark to make beautiful baskets, bracelets, and blankets. When braiding hair, kindness and love can flow between the braids. Linked by braiding, there is a certain reciprocity amongst strands, all the strands hold together. Each strand remains a separate entity, a certain tension is required, but all strands come together to form the whole. When we braid Indigenous Science (IS) with Western Science (WS) we acknowledge that both ways of knowing are legitimate forms of knowledge. For Indigenous peoples, Indigenous Knowledge (Indigenous Science) is a gift. It cannot be simply bought and sold. Certain obligations are attached. The more something is shared, the greater becomes its value.”

The desire to tackle this duality and weave multiple knowledge systems has been materialized in global, national and local policy initiatives (Kimmerer & Artelle 2024; e.g., The Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledge and Science in the US).

For instance, Tengö et al. (2017) provided guidance on how to weave multiple knowledge systems in international science-policy such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), suggesting five main task to enable bridging knowledge systems, as follow:

Five main task to enable bridging knowledge systems (next bullets from Tengö et al. (2017)

• Mobilise means to bring out and articulate knowledge into a form that can be shared with others.

• Translate implies interactions between knowledge systems, indicated by the dotted lines, to enable mutual comprehension of the shared knowledge.

• Negotiate means joint assessment of convergence, divergence, and conflicts across knowledge contributions, illustrated here by the combination of some coloured strands (convergence), whereas others may remain contradictory.

• Synthesise concerns shaping a broadly accepted common knowledge that maintains the integrity of each knowledge system, illustrated here by braided strands, rather than ‘integrating’ into one knowledge system.

• Apply emphasizes knowledge usable for decision making for all actors involved, at different scales, that can feed back into the respective knowledge system, represented here by multiple braids.

Tengö et al. (2017) proposed five main activities that enable bridging knowledge systems. These recognize the different elements of work needed to weave multiple knowledge systems in international science-policy such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). These activities can be applied for national and regional initiatives. Image from Tengö et al. (2017).

Effective engagement of actors, institutions and knowledge-sharing processes is crucial in each of these tasks. Rathwell et al. (2015) presented four settings that can facilitate the bridging of knowledge systems: the epistemological arena; methods and processes; brokerage mechanisms; and governance/institutional arrangements. These four settings should all contribute to national and regional initiatives for identifying and framing conservation action.

Examples of weaving multiple knowledge systems in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services

- Reconciling multiple views (e.g., Indigenous people view themselves as part of the ecosystem they live in, not an external feature, Normyle et al. 2022.)).

- Promoting Indigenous research leadership (Latulippe & Klenk 2020).

- An approach to support Indigenous and Local Knowledge and IPBES assessment (Hill et al. 2020).

- Participatory mapping as an effective spatial explicit tool for conservation planning and management (e.g., Andrade et al. 2021,Chick and Lawrence 2014, Parmesan et al. 2022, Molnar et al. 2021).

- Indigenous youth must be at the forefront of management, decision-making, policy, etc, (e.g., Olawunmi et al. 2023).

- “Determining when Indigenous ecological knowledge and o Western scientific data are complementary or reach common conclusions may allow Indigenous communities to use both together, or one knowledge type over another when either is more desired, appropriate, or time- or cost-efficient to adopt.” (Bowles et al. 2022).

- The Importance of Indigenous Knowledge in Curbing the Loss of Language and Biodiversity (Wilder et al. 2016)

- Exploring the intersection of Indigenous knowledge and other disciplines  such as ethnobiology (Turner et al. 2022, Molnár et al. 2023).

- Weaving multiple knowledge systems through land-based field courses (Jacobs et al. 2021) and others (Royal Roads University).

- Alexander et al. (2021) compiled more than 70 case studies bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research and management in Canada.  They concluded that:

- “There is the need to consider in more detail how Indigenous knowledge and science can be respectively bridged, but also recognize the specific place-based needs of Indigenous communities.

-  the need to better report the demographics of knowledge holders

- numerous methodologies and methods that can be employed by those working to bridge knowledge systems.” 

Our Knowledge Our Way Guidelines

In partnership with CSIRO, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), and with support from the Australian Committee of the IUCN, we answered a call from the Indigenous-majority Project Steering Group to develop a set of Best Practice Guidelines for working with Indigenous knowledge in land and sea management that would:

-Empower Indigenous people to look after Country ‘our way’.

-Improve environmental conditions and recognise the multiple social, cultural and economic benefits that come from effective Indigenous adaptive management of Country.

5. Relational place-based solutions for environmental policy

Most human impacts on biodiversity are viewed as threats, despite large fractions of Earth’s land and waters being home to Indigenous and local peoples who have actively created and managed them for millennia. This ignorance pervades so deeply within conservation discourse that it overlooks the fact that many of these “high-value” biodiverse landscapes are the historical product of, and thus require, human intervention to maintain the very values for which they are lauded (Fletcher et al. 2021). In the HJBL we see impacts arising from the threat of climate change or projected impacts of mining and other forms of development, but we must not ignore the reciprocity between the flora and fauna and the activities and livelihoods of the Indigenous communities living on the lands and waters.

Despite calls to decolonize conservation and decades of critical engagement by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, contemporary Western conservation paradigms (Mace 2014) and practice continues to downplay reciprocity between humans and the ecological world around us. Many major conservation programs and interventions still frame action in the form of subordinating relationships between those who govern landscapes and those peoples governed in them and their culture, knowledge, livelihoods, and environmental impacts (Fletcher et al. 2021).

To address this deep misalignment, Kobluk et al. (2024) argued for a return to place-based approaches that are empowered by Indigenous governance and knowledge systems. Traditional Knowledge systems recognize spatially explicit reciprocal relationships among all living and nonliving things, including people, and the responsibility to steward them (Figure below). For example, governance principles, such as hišuk mah c̓ awaak, recognize food web dynamics that link species and habitats, which accommodate and, in many cases depend on, cultural practices of harvest and stewardship by people (Fletcher et al. 2021). These relationships arise from specific places and have coevolved over time.

Environmental management and conservation approaches. (A) Centralized decision-making by dominant siloed institutions that, in Canada, are structured around industries and/or user groups, removed from place, and managed by different levels of government under distinct laws and policies (shown by silos) regularly leading to policy mismatches. (B) Place-based management that reflects reciprocal social-ecological relationships (yellow broken lines) unique to place, relies on multiple knowledge systems, and where decision-making power is devolved to place. While each place is visualized separately, social-ecological relationships extend across multiple scales/ecosystems. (Source: Kobluk et al. (2024))

In these Indigenous-led examples, people are intentionally engaged in maintaining social-ecological relationships in place, which is reflective of the relational worldviews of each respective Indigenous

People and their place-specific knowledge. Each case reasserts the idea that desired outcomes for all living things, including people, derive from a larger system of persistent and resilient relationships. Therefore, management objectives consider the system as a whole, including multiple social, cultural, and ecological outcomes and the functional role of people in achieving them.

Moreover, desired outcomes are not targets and quotas for the biomass of geese, moose, and fish, but rather the persistence of reciprocal relationships among all components of nature, including people.

Restoring the authority of Indigenous Peoples to manage relationships within landscapes according to their values, laws, and cultural practices is an important pathway to avert the negative consequences of policy misalignments, and to challenge existing systems that continue to fail to address linked social and ecological crises. The challenge of combining local knowledge and government science and reconciling bottom-up and top-down approaches requires designing cross-scale management systems (Elmqvist et al. 2004).  

As Kobluk et al. (2024) concluded “It may not be easy, but the restoration of place-based, Indigenous governance will leave us better poised to meet the interwoven goals of biodiversity conservation, social equity, and environmental justice for which we are legally and morally accountable”.

6. Community Based Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge

Community based monitoring and information systems are contributing significantly to our understanding of biodiversity change worldwide (Ferrari et al. 2015). Community Based Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge as follows (Quiah 2023):

“Community-based monitoring (CBM) is a participatory approach that involves the active engagement of local communities in the monitoring and management of their natural resources. It recognizes the invaluableness of local communities in conserving and sustainably using their ecosystems, and it leverages their traditional knowledge to inform decision-making processes.”

Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, practices, and beliefs passed down through generations within a community. It encompasses a deep understanding of local ecosystems, biodiversity, and the interdependencies between human well-being and the environment. Traditional knowledge often includes observations, techniques, and rituals that have proven effective in managing and preserving natural resources over time. For instance, Flood et al. (2021) in Ireland used deep mapping values of peatlands for valuing temporal dimensions of cultural ecosystem services to incorporate the dynamic and evolving nature of people’s relationships with natural environments.

When combined, community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge create a powerful tool for sustainable resource management. By involving local communities in the monitoring process (Danielsen et al. 2021). CBM ensures that their perspectives and insights are enlightened in data collection, analysis, and interpretation, which enhances their ownership and commitment to the management of their resources. Johnson et al. (2021) have shown multiple examples of how the use of digital platforms have improved data management in community-based monitoring programs.

Traditional knowledge complements scientific data and provides additional insights into ecosystem dynamics. It can reveal long-term trends and local indicators of environmental change that may be overlooked by scientific methods alone. Integrating traditional knowledge with scientific data allows for a more comprehensive understanding of ecosystems and their resilience in the developing effective conservation strategies.”

7. Workshop findings

GEO BON and Parks Canada convened a two-day workshop in Montreal (Oct 16-17, 2023) with primary knowledge holders from three main partners groups: GEO BON experts, regional experts and indigenous scholars and partners (e.g., Parks Canada, ECCC, Indigenous communities). Some of the main conclusions from this workshop were:

Working together

• There is a strong desire among all partners to work together to find ways to protect biodiversity and manage ecosystem services in the HJBL. 

The words that come before all else:

• Expressing gratitude and emphatic connection to all of creation. “The words address the People, Earth Mother, The Waters, Fish, Plants, Food Plants, Medicine Herbs, Trees, Birds, Four Winds, Thunderers, Sun, Grandfather Moon, Stars, Enlightened Teachers, and The Creator. Each element of the natural world is spoken to and thanked for their contributions to all life. These words bind us and promote empathy with all creation” (Donna Long). 

Know the “100-year vision” to anticipate change

• There is a need to preserve the Omushkego Traditional Territory for future generations and appreciate the diverse contributions of all engaged groups.

• There is also a global need to protect carbon-rich areas to provide climate stability on the planet.

Relationships first - build trust

• The necessity of building trust and understanding indigenous methodologies, primarily passed through oral tradition.

• It is imperative that all stakeholders and rights holders are known and recognized.

• Find a common language in relation to building shared understanding and trust of the words we use..

Rebuild what has been lost

• The significance of acknowledging the differences in knowledge systems, rebuilding lost elements such as language, and understanding why certain knowledge is preserved in indigenous communities.

Recognize the unique priorities for each community

• All needs, priorities and expectations from indigenous peoples and local communities should be expressed, heard and respected by all partners. For instance, the value of wetlands beyond agricultural purposes is seen as a way to express how valued they are to communities.

Knowledge to action is a social exercise

• This is a process gathering multiple partners, it takes time to design, implement and get results (most likely generations), including multiple opinions/ideas/views, trade-offs and persistence.

• However, start by doing things! Planning can take a long time. So, identify steps we can take now, which may lead to improved engagement with Indigenous communities.

• We can start building a monitoring system, with what we already know, and then begin monitoring that responds to specific community needs. And then this monitoring feeds into the planned monitoring system.

• Partners must acknowledge that there are some things Indigenous People cannot accommodate, that sharing knowledge is not for granted.

• Explore ways to effectively communicate among partners (words matter)

• Braiding knowledge as key navigators.

• Collaborative approach, community engagement, and a step-by-step implementation to address the entire system’s needs incrementally, ensuring credibility, relevance, and resilience in the process. 

Multiple ways to gather information

• Engaging with First Nations communities to gather traditional knowledge and narratives concerning ecosystem changes. For instance, phenology studies, such as the CreeGeo Hub, which records temporal changes, indicating shifts in timing and utilizing language-based indicators.

Weaving knowledge to build policies

• There is a need to bring people together across scientific fields, decision-makers, and Indigenous communities and in particular to help Indigenous communities find a way to be in the same room as policymakers.

8. Guidance for action

A system to inform multiple partners

The main ideas compiled from the workshop to weave multiple knolwedge systems and move forward this initiative are:

1. Indigenous lead system Ensure Indigenous participation and engagement in decision making and management is at the heart of inclusive and just conservation in Canada and worldwide (Henri et al. 2021, Bowles et al. 2022, TWC, McGregor et al. 2023). Start with local expertise, acknowledging the significance of local knowledge and the necessity of providing essential tools, capacity building and funding, among others.

2. Healthy and resilient system That is, people having access to secure goods and water, agency in decisions, mental, physical, and spiritual health. Risk can be anticipated, understood, and communicated. Nature is valued across scales (across communities and globally).

3. Participation of multiple partners Convening experts from various fields, including modelers, remote sensing specialists, and field scientists. The role of indigenous mental models in defining monitoring systems and networks, employing fuzzy cognitive mapping to conceptualize relationships. Emphasis on cross-cultural lexicons and the contrast between indigenous and western models. Multiple partners setting achievable common goals, leveraging some community based opportunities and maximizing the mutual benefits of cooperation by integrating multiple strategies .

4. A network architecture for the system Buy-in from many stakeholders. Legitimacy, salience and credibility. Continuity as some nodes get more or less involved. Takes many perspectives into consideration (indigenous, provincial, federal, etc.). Apolitical collaboration space. Engage others as it grows.

5. Implement multi-objective and multiscale approaches The multiscale nature of biodiversity and drivers of change (social, economic, and cultural) affect the provision of ecosystem services and also determine the implementation of conservation planning strategies. Thus, it is strategic to integrate multiple objectives in conservation planning (e.g., multiple facets of biodiversity, and multiple ecosystems services under multiple scenarios) and also evaluate the effect of implementing strategies at different scales (local, regional, national, and global). Managing multiple interconnected biophysical features in a region and responding to multiple needs and expectations, by including their commonalities and trade-offs.

6. Multi-prong/thematic/holistic approach Indigenous communities emerged as key holders of critical knowledge on traditional wildlife use, emphasizing the importance of their insights in understanding and managing resources for sustenance. Protecting peatlands for their carbon storage potential offers many co-benefits (e.g., water quality protection, water provision, flood alleviation and mitigation, food security, biodiversity). Applying the best monitoring practices for observing ecosystem change so that they support detection and attribution of the causes for change. Food security: the broader definition of food security, going beyond mere access to food, encompassing health indicators, traditional hunting costs, and the broader subsistence economy, shedding light on the intricate connections between food security and diverse aspects of community life. Food security concerns in a peatland context are more closely aligned with biodiversity rather than agriculture. It’s about more than food, it is about nutrition and access (local economy, access, water, health). Field data (e.g., soil cores, measuring plant biomass, eddy covariance stations, gas flux chambers) alongside remote sensing and modeling approaches (e.g., estimating spatial variability of carbon stocks to inform where to conserve, to model peatland depth, to model disturbances: fires, permafrost thaw). Using paleoclimate records of past warmer, drier, wetter and/or cooler conditions as well as regional analogs (i.e., from the Western boreal) is a useful approach to improve predictive models of future changes in response to impacts.

7. Integrating bottom-up and top-down approaches Evaluating how global initiatives (CBDs and SCGs goals and targets) are received and potentially applied in a region; and also what are their most likely implications (benefits and trade-offs) in local and national policies and management actions. Using participatory approaches identify and localize relevant global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Shared Socioeconomic  Pathways (SSPs) relevant to the HJBL and articulate them tolocal socioeconomic pathways or co-create these local scenarios by weaving multiple knowledge systems and collaborating with multiple partners to identify their needs and expectation.

8. Build for the long-term Identify challenges in long-term standardized monitoring and opportunities for the use of mixed information sources for new models, including AI applications, highlighting the value of both qualitative and quantitative information in addressing these biodiversity and ecosystem services challenges. Linking action also to markets and regulatory agencies.

9. Proactive planning The importance of considering the precautionary principle, which suggests acting with the best available knowledge even in the presence of uncertainty. Avoiding having to restore areas where there should not have been activity in the first place. Identification and protection of key priority areas within the HJBL, considering multiple biophysical, social, economic and cultural aspects. For instance, areas crucial for carbon storage, taking into account their resilience, sensitivity and vulnerability to safeguard against potential threats. Compile what we already know because it will inform what data we might need. Consider the social dynamics of how a decision is made. Targeting specific data, simplifying messages, and leveraging existing information.

10. Capacity building Supporting Indigenous-led processes, acknowledging diverse scientific practices, and integrating monitoring and adaptive management. Support local initiatives (e.g., Cree GeoHub) by providing resources to make it fully operational and relevant to all partners needs and expectations. Implement a long term strategy to weave multiple knowledge systems. Identify a strategy to deal with information as it grows in time (in different areas and multiple biophysical and socioeconomic components). Implement a strategy to integrate data collection, monitoring, modeling and multi-partners’ decision making at multiple spatial and temporal scales.

11. Communication strategies among partners Knowledge is passed through oral traditions. The importance of understanding the different types of information for diverse audiences. Use a range of ways of communicating and sharing knowledge of biodiversity change (over time and across the HBJBL. Embed this into participation and engagement in the activities that the Biodiversity Observation Network supports. Finding a common language in relation to local words for nature and how locals view,  benefit and value nature to ensure we avoid dis-respect, but also we develop shared understanding based on full awareness of terms and language use.

12. Integrating remote sensing, community-based monitoring and modelling Using a coordinated implementation of remote sensing, community-based monitoring, experts modeling techniques is strategic in large and inaccessible areas like the HJBL; and the historical and day to day knowledge of Indigenous People and local communities.

13. Data sovereignty There are some concerns about therisks associated with data sharing, challenges in data interoperability, and the adaptation of models from other regions to the HJBL’s context.

14. Combining quantitative data analysis, and storytelling in oral tradition Storytelling and oral histories emerged as a method to communicate changes in the environment.

15. Forecasting and scenarios Need more information on how development in this region (past, present, and future) will impact carbon storage (e.g., creation of roads, mining, hydro, etc.). Need to communicate that because of ongoing climate change and other forms of environmental change, restoration to previous ecological functions may be very difficult and extremely expensive. Integrating monitoring and forecasting models.

16. Aligning conservation and biodiversity goals with rights of Indigenous Peoples land and resources rights is required in any process that might reach a vision of living in harmony with life on Earth. Returning to place-based approaches that are empowered by Indigenous governance and knowledge systems could “meet the interwoven goals of biodiversity conservation, social equity, and environmental justice for which we are legally and morally accountable” (Kobluk et al. 2024).

17. Implementing the two-eyed seeing approach (i.e., bringing diverse knowledge systems together on an equal footing (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall 2012)) to address signals of long-term social, ecological and biophysical change.

How can these tools support the HJBL initiative?

18. Partners’ vision and collaboration strategy Identify a shared vision and collaboration strategy; address the challenges and potential solutions for implementing this strategy.

19. Co-design a system Listen first -learn from traditional knowledge & answer people’s needs. Systems thinking points to the interconnectedness of parts. scenarios and forecasts. Take a whole system approach, linking diversity to ecosystem functions and services (benefits to people). Monitoring effectively to capture change in the way biodiversity mediates carbon. Community is central (engage youth, build trust, ensure continuity). Change is pervasive and fast (culture, knowledge, climate, species distributions). Traditional Knowledge in the form of oral histories could provide evidence for changes in disturbance rates (e.g., permafrost thaw, fires) and identify synergies between carbon and other co-benefits, including biodiversity, water quality, etc. The need to bring together knowledge in hand – a baseline knowledge description weaving together different types of knowledge (tacit and explicit) and models (taxonomic and functional diversity, ecosystem process, drivers etc.), and identify what is needed (where, how often, for whom). Embrace and develop multiple views and models of biodiversity change relevant to the HBJBL, that can be informed by the knowledge we have to guide observations and monitoring. Consider change in short term events (fires, floods, disease etc.) as well as longer term trends. Acknowledge the different scales of change and link to causes (distant and local factors mediating change) that can be framed to support qualitative and quantitative In designing this monitoring framework, we need to consider reconciliation, decolonization, and return of land. Consider conducting a participatory scenario analysis. Consider creating decision trees that link datasets to potential decisions, contexts, and needs.

20. Co-design and establish a comprehensive sampling network. The landscape’s vast variation and diverse features, both spatially and temporally, underscored the need for a sampling network encompassing various locations and factors of interest. The importance of designing a network that can capture multiple signals and information sources from natural systems and local communities, enabling a comprehensive understanding. This region is highly dynamic across time (e.g., daily, seasonally, annually) and heterogeneous across space. Therefore, long-term monitoring is needed. Method selection depends on the decisions we seek to inform. Local community involvement is key to combat challenges for conducting research in this region (e.g., need for on-site researchers to avoid equipment being destroyed by polar bears). Local expertise is important. Knowledge and interest are there, if given the resources needed. Updatable integrated forecasting component using a combination of predictive trade-off models and simple indicators of state that can help focus efforts to places that are worth it both short and long term.

21. Cree GeoHub as a tool for compiling, analyzing and synthesizing data Build and curate knowledge with the CreeGeo Hub. Map potential ecosystem services in the region. Study the impacts of resource extraction. Use existing toolkits made for purpose (BON in a Box) to create reusable scripts that are usable by people with and without expertise. This will help initiate the data integration/acquisition process and predictions. Monitoring in this region requires a participatory process.

22. Funding Identify needs, priorities and deadlines. Each community already knows the dominant problems (e.g., impacts of mining and/or hydro on fish populations). Traditional Knowledge on local hydrology should be documented. Leverage current funding (2.5 years) to set up and access more funding (private, public, NGO) while acknowledging funding constraints and opportunities. Keep a diverse range of perspectives in mind through an iterative process which includes global priorities (CC, fire risk), as they can be used to access federal and NGO funding. Consider private funding / philanthropy where the values and motivations of the finance providers align with those of the local communities.

23. Start with some key case studies Immediate implementation of pilot projects, testing potential solutions or management options, might provide early evidence to move forward and scale up most suitable and cost-benefit options. Develop a project register - list of ‘shovel-ready’ projects that can be delivered but don’t have funding allocated at present (to ensure preparedness for opportunities when finance is presented).

24. Capacity building for all partners Design and implement deep mapping techniques, and monitoring systems rooted in Traditional Knowledge. Do not lead with the data, but rather focus on outcomes and stories of change. The network requires a full-time central team to keep the network alive and connected, potentially also including a member in each node. These facilitators are essential to build trust and be known by others.